Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


coalition_unwilling's Journal
coalition_unwilling's Journal
February 6, 2013

Notice to the 99%: You are ALL eminently disposable. The 'drone white paper'

uncovered by Michael Isikoff is just an exclamation point on a general stance and philosophy of the ruling elite that anyone who works for a living is a disposable commodity, just like petroleum and pork bellies, when you no longer serve the interests of the global 1%.

I'm really astounded that Obama has so little integrity that he allows his name to be forever besmirched by association with this drone policy, but then I remember that American democracy is basically a system to protect the interests of the private property owners and has been since 1776.

So if you work for a living, you are now on notice: you too are completely and totally disposable at the whim of an executive branch unencumbered by such quaint and obsolete notions as due process or judicial review and you are nothing to the global 1%, those who do not earn their livings by the sweat of their brows.

The question, as V.I. Lenin stated 100 years ago, is "What is to be done?"

January 31, 2013

Jobless claims push off five-year lows last week

Source: Reuters (via Yahoo)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits bounced off five-year lows last week, pulling them back to levels consistent with modest job growth.

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits increased 38,000 to a seasonally adjusted 368,000, the Labor Department said on Thursday. The prior week's claims figure was unrevised.

Economists polled by Reuters had expected claims to increase to 350,000.

Read more: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/jobless-claims-push-off-five-133118083.html

Let's be clear here. The number of Americans claiming first-time UE benefits last week jumped 10% (from 330,000 to 368,000). Combined with the news yesterday that GDP shrank 0.1% in the fourth quarter of 2012, the news again underlines that under Rape-publi-scum leadership, the economy is in a dead-cat bounce.

See also: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014384951

Time for Obama to start campaigning for 2014 mid-terms NOW. Campaigning against the Do-Nothing Congress. Time for the Dem Party to look to mount strong competitors in EVERY House district.

ETA: First paragraph is one of the worst I've read in a long time. When first-time UE claims climb 10% in a single week, that does NOT point to 'modest job growth'. For fuck's sake. That Yahoo editor should be fired.
January 30, 2013

US economy shrinks 0.1 pct., 1st time in 3 years

Source: Yahoo

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. economy shrank from October through December for the first time since the recession ended, hurt by the biggest cut in defense spending in 40 years, fewer exports and sluggish growth in company stockpiles.

The Commerce Department said Wednesday that the economy contracted at an annual rate of 0.1 percent in the fourth quarter. That's a sharp slowdown from the 3.1 percent growth rate in the July-September quarter.

The surprise contraction could raise fears about the economy's ability to handle tax increases that took effect in January and looming spending cuts.

Read more: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-economy-shrinks-0-1-133115372.html

On a positive note , GDP grew annually at a 2.2% rate.

Most economists define a "recession" as 2 or more successive quarters of negative growth in GDP. This quarter's -0.1% thus starts the counter ticking. Will the Rape-publi-scum Congress deliver the coup de grace in Q1 2013?
December 20, 2012

In the words of the great DUer Alcibiades_Mystery:

There once was a Sec of Defense
Whose prose was Excessively Dense
His Philosopher's Stone
Was an Unknown Unknown -
I'll Be Damned If It Made Any Sense

From the dusty DU2 archives:


Scroll down on the page for more great Rumsfeld limericks. I'm particularly partial to the ones by Orrex and alcibiades_mystery.

December 19, 2012

Further to your point about 'false emotions,' I don't recall seeing one media broadcast

much less a full-blown media meltdown when these 10 schoolgirls died:

Ten Afghan girls, aged from nine to 13, were killed on Monday when an unexploded bomb or landmine detonated as they were out gathering firewood near their village in eastern Afghanistan.


Oh, wait, these were terrorists disguised as children

December 18, 2012

I think jurors who vote to hide a comment should be

required to state a reason.

Just finished serving on a Jury that voted 4-2 to let a post stand. The two who voted to Hide gave no explanation. They were voting to suppress speech and I think those so voting should have to provide their reasons.

At Tue Dec 18, 2012, 02:14 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

The Wasilla Grifter can go fuck herself with a rusty sewer pipe.


This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)


As much as I despise Sarah Palin, DU does not benefit from this sort of post.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Dec 18, 2012, 02:25 PM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I have mixed feelings about this but, if we cannot use hyperbole and figurative language here on DU, we might as well shut the site down. DU probably does not "benefit" from this sort of post but, by that standard, 90% of posts would have to be hidden.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: DU does not benefit from emotional and ugly postings, but this post, while rude, and perhaps hurtful to someone, does not rise to the over-the-top level of other distressing postings that do not get alerted.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Sarah Palin has rejected feminism. Therefore she should be fair game for sexist insults.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

In the interest of transparency, I was Juror #4
December 18, 2012

Ms. Murphy was 52 (my age). Let us hereby resolve that these dead

shall not have died in vain.


December 17, 2012

I just noticed that amongst all the 'blame the parents' and 'arm the teacher' threads

making the rounds today, there is not ONE SINGLE THREAD blaming the gun manufacturers and their shareholders.

I mean, seriously, don't the folks at Bushmaster and Glock bear some responsibility for Newtown also? We hold tobacconists responsible for the harm their products cause. Shouldn't that same logic apply to the manufacturers of WMD?

December 17, 2012

Does the Newtown Massacre have to be anyone's "fault"? Maybe it's

as simple as genetics run amok and, if there is fault to be assigned, it is to society for failing to educate its citizenry better about genetics (ETA: mental health, and the dangers of firearms).

Some 200 years ago, the poet Coleridge in discussing Shakespeare's Iago talked about his 'motiveless malignity.' While this phrase has traditionally received a gloss to mean 'evil' in the Judeo-Christian sense, if we strip out the religious hocus-pocus, perhaps we could say that the Newtown Massacre was an instance of 'genetic malignity'. Either way, the Newtown Massacre remains at its core ultimately unfathomable, much like Iago's crimes.

I'm really sick and tired of seeing the mother and father, individually or collectively, getting blamed for this. Anyone who's had mental illness in his or her family with a sibling or child knows that the best parenting in the world often doesn't mean jack shit one way or the other. (Lousy parenting may produce still more adverse outcomes, but that's another thread, I would say.) If the genes predispose someone to a particular affliction and the environmental trigger(s) present(s), the parenting of that person isn't going to mean much by way of prevention or amelioration.

Blaming the mother here smacks of misogyny in a major way, since she is not here to explain herself. Likewise, blaming the father carries just the faintest taste of misandry. Either one is way out of line, in my opinion, based on what we currently know.

Profile Information

Member since: Mon Aug 2, 2004, 02:31 PM
Number of posts: 14,180

Journal Entries

Latest Discussions»coalition_unwilling's Journal